About your Search

Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
about any of these events visit us at s f gvment gov tv dot ordinary care an please beware that the commission [inaudible] any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you'd like to speak on an agendized item, please fill out a speaker card and when speaking to the commission speak into the microphone and do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini? >> present. >> commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> first up, commissioners, on your calendar, consideration of items proposed for continuance, item 1, case no. 2012.1442c for 795 folsom street, request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february 28th, 2013. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the one item proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner sugaya. >> move
could send those to us also. i assume it's a chart showing the trade off in the tiers. >> of course we can send that to the commission. >> and you said there is analysis of how it's been working so far in eastern neighborhoods. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners that places you -- >> the board of appeals and there were two items and the first one is on oakdale avenue. they upheld the permit and they sought to reduce the size of the building but there were concerns from the neighborhoods how they were doing the work and mitigations for air quality issues so there is appeal from the neighborhood on that. the board upheld the permit but they didn't have a condition to do a soil study. there was a rehearing request in the permit and the appellate noted some facts over a day over two after the hearing the project sponsor continued work, remove paint, probably lead paint without containment and additional demolition. a inspector was called out and they were barred from entry and they were intimidated and san francisco police department responded toed scene and this was reported
, commissioners, planning staff. the project before you is the second conditional use authorization request from domino's pizza and the proposal is to establish a new formula retail lease at 1109 fillmore and golden gate avenue. the proposed site is located along the district along the western addition neighborhood district. it currently operates three blocks north of the proposed site and it's vacating the space and moving to 1109 fillmore, which is occupied by a limit the restaurant use as well. according to new information by the project sponsor since the release of the report they want to relocate in the immediate area. as already presented the applicant has submitted two conditional use authorization requests before you, the first to relocate his existing building to the 1109 fillmore site and the alternate at 3015 geary boulevard is the one that was previously heard under item 156789 the subject neighborhood is characterized by a diverse mix of goods and services. the subject nine-block district span president bush street, southward to mcallister street. the corridor is well-served by tran
use authorization. case five at 795 folsom street request for conditional use authorization and six for 3221 20th street and request for conditional use authorization and case seven at 975 bryant street. just to clarify item seven for 975 bryant street was considered on february 14, 2013 and following testimony the commission continued the matter to this date. the motion for today under concept is for disapproval. commissioners i think there is interest to pull a couple of items off of consent. >> is there any public comment for the items on the consent calendar? do you want to come up up? >> yes, i would like to remove item four, the request for conditional use authorization. from the consent calendar please. >> okay. >> and your name? >> my name is michelle carter. >> okay. thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> i would also like to remove number four. my name is wendy beam. thank you. >> hi, i am mark dennis and i would like number four removed from the consent calendar. >> it only takes one person. >> any additional public comment for matters on the consent calen
to justify the interim use of the site. well, this is not required below grade extraction. it facilitated the building of the cable car. however, it then returned the property to its potential realization with an entitled residential project, which at its time was slightly too large, but that is not what we're discussing here. using an sud for an interim use and then tagging on a project which by necessity of demolition for the interim use would require cu without submitting proper drawings which, one, in approving sud and approving cu are required i think is unfathomable to me. this commission spent a lot of time against some of our convictionses at the time and we approved the project with the very thoughtfully executed design which with many tucks and twists and turns, but forward a project that the neighborhood was comfortable with at large. i support the design, although there were people who asked us to hold out and not approve. after so many years, as the audience here testified, this site needed a change. why can't this project not in good faith come back to this commission as a r
participant in their experiment to use the residents in the area as a control group, and i don't quite understand how -- lastly i don't understand how this was able to slip through. we received -- residents in my area -- at least the neighbors that i asked we received one notification and that was a month ago and that was for this and we heard nothing else. thank you. >> hi. my name is mark dennis and i am opposed to the installation of these antennas. basically the sections that they have moved to have the them under with the planning code it requires there is the necessity like people have mentioned and i don't believe at&t can show that necessity. i know people in the area that have at&t and they have no problems with the coverage. the representative from at&t brings up the public transportation lines there. that really seems like a last -- oh we have nothing to grab at kind of argument. oh let's bring up public transportation. every carrier -- cell phone carrier you can always make engineer -- emergency calls and to bring that up it means they don't believe their own argument.
, and important to those of us who support a station in north beach, that is the majority of my neighbors in my opinion, it preserve the section of tunnel that's currently planned in phase ii that runs from chinatown to north beach. it's already paid for. it's a done deal. and it allows that section of tunnel to be built. and we hope to facilitate the eventual construction of a north beach station. this item allows you to support the efforts of our supervisor who has tried very hard to be responsive to the concerns of his constituents. and i hope that this item will help jump start the discussion of an eventual north beach and potentially fisherman's wharf station. i think the central subway doesn't make sense without those and i think our neighborhood needs them to continue to grow and survive in the future. so, give us a hand, if you would. let this roll forward. and i hope we're talking about a north beach station before too much longer. thank you, commissioners. >> is there any additional or further public comment? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner ant
and the entitlement actions and the specifics on those. so, the request before you today is for conditional use authorization to allow development on the lot greater than 5,000 square feet, to allow a nonresidential use greater than 2000 square feet, to allow the demolition of a former movie theater, and to allow restaurant use for the type 47 abc lice license. and then the commission would also make recommendations regarding the proposed reclassification of the site from a 40 foot to a 55 foot height limit and the adoption of a special use district or sud for the site. so, the development project involves the demolition of the existing vacant feeder and the construction of a new five story over basement mixed use building containing up to 18 dwelling units, a restaurant measuring approximately 4700 square feet, and up to 27 off-street parking spaces. and as has been described, following demolition of these existing building and prior to the construction of the new building, the site will be utilized for extraction of the tunnel boring equipment associated with the central subway project. a pro
district use legislation. very briefly i did want to state that the sud is contingent on the lease negotiations that the mta is conducting with the owner of 1741 powell. the negotiations are going. our requested for a continuance of one week. >> president fong: additional public comment on the two items proposed for continuance? >>: my name is richard hamlin longtime resident of north beach. i want this project very much. extraction down at the pagoda and perhaps someday having a station there. >>: -- we submitted a legal letter to the planning commission. -- opposes and objects to the extraction at the pagoda and zoning map amendment and special use district on the grounds of this project is obviously very different from the original project that was approved in the eir by example the geotechnical engineers letter included in the package points out the very high water table and the de-watering and pressure on adjacent buildings not evaluated on a previous eir. also,-- >>: this public comment is only to the continuance itself. >>: should i make comments during the general commen
promised that they would bring us and consultant to make recommendations about noise abatement and containment, we still don't have that. what we have is a report that you have not received. we welcomed the consultants. instead we have a report that you now have. is asking for permission to go 20 decibels or more above the nubmer that the inspector for the entertainment commission has established. that is not responsible; that is not working to try to abate the noise. they want the ability to go higher. consider also the citations that pa'ina has already received. look at the citations. it paints a dangerous picture about the fact that pa'ina is already in violation of the liquor license, of the entertainment commission. >> president fong: next speaker please. >>: and kathy nelson, director of the kabuki spa. i agree with everything that nancy and mr. feinman have said. i will also say in their favor that every time we called in the last several months, they have taking care of it. that is where i am at. i feel like i don't know -- but thanks. >>: left and the commissioner
rhode island street, request for conditional use authorization. i believe commissioner moore is requesting that it be pulled off. >> [inaudible]. >> we'll place that first item under the regular calendar. moving on, commissioners, commissioners questions and matters, item 3, consideration of adoption draft minutes for january 31st, 2013. >> is there any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner borden. >> approve draft minutes november -- excuse me, from january 31st. >> second. >> on the motion to adopt minutes for january 31st, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? he aye. >>and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under item 4, commission questions and comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a couple of things, i've been hearing these reports in the news about an impending demolition of candlestick park. about a year from now, if in fact th
us to think differently about that. i mean, how do we not have to save ourselves from ourselves? how is it that we don't -- how do we promote a culture that is a starbucks oregon charred supply, a neighborhood people don't patronize those differences so they don't survive, they don't want to come to san francisco? why is it that there is that tension and we basically have to try to stop people from doing that? i don't know. it's weird, it's an interesting kind of dynamic, but that's actually what we're asking ourselves to do, save ourselves from ourselves and, you know, i do believe that i see an impact and it's hard because necessary and desirable is our conditional use threshold. i don't know that necessary desirable improvement in this particular case. i don't know why -- it sounds like we have lots of other hardware related uses that exist, you know. obviously desirability is very much a subjective terminology which i think is why it makes it funny when you have that for conditional use. but in term of necessity, you know, i don't see that there is a necessity. obviously if
. and then lastly, it would amend planning code section 703.2b to allow food processing as an accessory use. on the west side of noe street between 15th and beaver for -- as an accessory use to a nonresidential establishment within 300 feet, provided that the food processing setback minimum of 15 feet from the property line and that accessory use be subject to section 312 notification and that it would sunset after one year. now, the department has presented to you in your packets a two-part recommendation and it's reflected in the draft resolution before you. first, the department makes a series of recommendations to the commission that you recommend approval with modifications to the board of supervisors. and then separately and secondly, the department recommends that the commission directs staff to initiate or to prepare an ordinance for initiation separately that would address concerns regarding inconsistencieses in the height designationses within the upper market district. i've also distributed a series of maps that might be helpful in the discussion. i put some extra copies out for
they might go in there, they may need a bigger space. i think that's a very attractive building. the use of the colors, it's a little darker, make things all pale, white, it all looks the same. then again, you can get some colors that look a little too crazy. but, you know, i think that's a part of it. and i mentioned the rounding of corners to try to cut the angularity and might tend to make the buildings a little more attractive. because there are -- you know, it's sort of always going to be a quasi-suburban -- i don't like the term because of the nature of mission bay. it's just going to be different than densely packed city blocks in the financial district or in even the area south of market which are longer blocks, but they're still pretty densely packed with previous industrial buildings. and it's going to have more of a separation. it's going to have more parking. it's going to have a lot of things that are, you know, but i think there are some very successful suburban parks and some that aren't very successful. i mentioned to bo earlier, the hacienda park in pleasanton, if you've
. proposition c is becoming increasingly important for us. the first thing we have is the financing memo which shows that we went out with a 12 percent affordable. 48 affordable units and 351. based on that financing we got some proposals from lenders the most .serious one was prudential. -- -0 what we have is we have something, the formal appraisal that prudential authorized had that as part of their basis. next, we went and got it formal commitment from prudential on december fourteenth; we got a 90-day locked rate. right now we have a 142 million dollar with a lock that expires on march 14. it is expressly conditioned on getting prop c approval. the next document is a letter from -- and material consideration of pmc underwriting the loan is inclusion of affordable housing. key assumption is the 12% affordable. boy, am i nervous. sorry. finally, with regards to prudential there is the actual construction loan agreement. i have not included the whole thing. page 59 of that expressly once again says that this loan is absolutely conditional on the prop c approval. finally, in your package w
for the broader floor plates and it allows tech uses and other uses that need this kind of configuration to come to satisfy. and i know of another situation that's similar to this at the present time uop [speaker not understood] dental school is renovating a building that already has these broad plates on 5th street near mission. and i was a graduate of the earlier facility and i can speak to the difficulty that facility has in its present location because of the narrowness. so, it's not just tech, but other uses. it's important that we get broad floor plates. however, this has to be correct and i think the things they've done in terms of tower separation, bulk, are very much in keeping with the code. as was pointed out by mr. guy, because of the tdr sold by 6 20, 63 1 howard, there never will be another tower that they have to separate themselves from because even if that building were to be destroyed in a fire or some other manner, it could never be built to more of a height than it's at now because they've already sold their tdrs. and then the bulk, there are a number of ways that you can gra
jurisdictions that we work with have zone limitations that affect the kind of size we use and illumination levels. we develop very specific signage packages and [speaker not understood] per the permit. they go beyond the exterior method signs we have on the building, but also talk about internal, not atm machines are included in the signage packages. the information is there for review. i'm saddened a little bit to hear such an objection to our sign quality. it is our intention to work with the community to produce signage packages. and esthetics for the bank itself, which blend in and are nice in the neighborhood. we provide a service and we want our banks to be appreciated in the community. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i think zoning administrator sanchez made a good point, and that is that to restrict lighting entirely or to try to prohibit it goes against what we're trying to accomplish. a well lit building, tastefully lit, provides security in the area. there's less apt to be crime or homeless encamp there or something if a building provides good illumination. you may think the
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)